Metropolitan Hilarion: Current situation creates a threat of schism for Universal Orthodoxy
In April 2018 the Patriarchate of Constantinople decided to admit for consideration the issue of granting autocephaly to “the Orthodox faithful of Ukraine.” The episcopate of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church unanimous spoke out for the preservation of its current status. However, against their will, Constantinople has set about implementing a project of the Ukrainian autocephaly. The communiqué of the Chief Secretariat of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, published on 7 September 2018, states that two hierarchs, Archbishop Daniel of Pamphilon (USA) and Bishop Hilarion of Edmonton (Canada), were appointed “exarchs” of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Kiev. In his interview to Russia 24 TV channel, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Department for External Church Relations, commented on the current situation and the reaction of the Moscow Patriarchate on the aforementioned decisions.
– Let us clarify for our viewers once again who exarchs are and why these bishops have been appointed to Ukraine from the USA and Canada. What are they needed for?
– The Greek word “exarch” means “superior.” The heads of large church areas were called “exarchs.” Besides, the word “exarch” is used in the meaning of “special envoy.” I suppose that what is meant here is that the two special representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople are to go to Kiev to prepare the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.
– I would like to clarify the situation. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (and it is to prepare autocephaly for “the Orthodox faithful of Ukraine” that these exarchs have been sent) is in the sphere of responsibility of the Moscow Patriarchate. Did the Ukrainian Orthodox Church ask for the autocephaly or was it the “Kievan Patriarchate,” which tries to separate itself?
– The Ukrainian Orthodox Church did not ask for the autocephaly. Moreover, during the consultation of bishops recently held by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, all the episcopate unanimously spoke out for the preservation of its current status.
The Ukrainian Church is a self-governing Church within the Moscow Patriarchate. This unity of the Russian Orthodox Church has been existing for 1030 years, dating back to the year 988, when Prince Vladimir baptized the Kievan Rus’. And now these exarchs, that is special representatives, of the Patriarchate of Constantinople have been appointed to implement the decision on granting the autocephaly, for which the canonical Ukrainian Church did not ask. It was the schismatics who talked about the autocephaly. They not so much talked about it as stated: “We have the autocephaly, and you should just acknowledge it.”
To help our viewers understand what autocephaly means I will explain that it is a Greek word translated as “self-heading.” It means complete ecclesiastical independence.
–Why has the Patriarchate of Constantinople taken such step – practically creating a schism or supporting it?
– For almost a hundred years the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been developing some kind of papistical doctrine, papistical self-identification. I would like to remind our viewers that historically the See of Rome was the first see in the Christian world, at least from the 4th century when the Roman Empire occupied the central place in the world. Yet, in the same 4th century Emperor Constantine moved the capital to the city of Constantinople which he had founded. At the Second Ecumenical Council a decision was taken that the See of Constantinople was to have equal privileges with the See of Rome. When in the 11th century the schism occurred between Rome and Constantinople, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which had always been the second, took the first place in the family of the Orthodox Churches. The Orthodox Church has never regarded this primacy as the primacy of power or jurisdiction. While in catholicism there is a notion that the whole Universal Church is led by the Pope who is seen as the source of authoritative powers for other bishops, the Orthodox Church has always had another system. This is the system of the Local Orthodox Churches. Each of them is independent, and none is subordinate to the other. However, in the 20th century (namely, in the 1920s) the Patriarchate of Constantinople that became the first due to a combination of circumstances began developing such understanding of its primacy that implied some special rights and privileges.
When in the early 1960s the issue of convening a Pan-Orthodox Council arose, the Orthodox Churches agreed that the Patriarchate of Constantinople would be the moderator of this process not because Constantinople has any special privileges, as it claims now, but because such was the consensus of all Orthodox Churches. I believe that if the Patriarchate of Constantinople was really a force consolidating the Churches and helping them resolve their differences, then such institution would indeed be needed in the Orthodox Church. Regrettably, the Patriarchate of Constantinople acts quite differently, not being able to settle the conflicts arising between the Churches, for instance, between the Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem. Instead of helping the Local Orthodox Churches overcome the schisms it itself begins to support the schisms.
– As for the rights of the Patriarchate of Constantinople… For instance, Patriarch Bartholomew claims that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has exclusive rights to solve problems arising in the Orthodox world. In the light of what you have just said it seems that the Russian Orthodox Church does not agree with such position. Is that right?
– We categorically disagree with such position. Here in my hands is the translation of Patriarch Bartholomew’s speech which he delivered several days ago before the entire episcopate of the Church of Constantinople. He said in that speech that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the “President of the body of Orthodoxy,” that “the beginning of the Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Patriarchate, that “Orthodoxy cannot exist without the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” How then did the Church exist until the 4th century, when there was no Ecumenical Patriarchate? And how did the Church exist when the Ecumenical Patriarchs fell into heresy?
Sometimes we are accused that the Russian Church proclaimed its autocephaly on its own, because in the middle of the 15th century Metropolitan Jonah of Moscow was elected without the consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople. But how could Rus’ obtain his consent when the Patriarch of Constantinople was in the Unia, in the heresy? He sent us the metropolitan who commemorated the Pope and, after being banished, became a cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church.
Thus, the claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople not just on the primacy of honour, but on some special rights and privileges are not justified in any way.
– Can in theory the Patriarchate of Constantinople issue a tomos of autocephaly?
– Historically the Patriarch of Constantinople sometimes issued tomes of autocephaly…
– Are there any precedents?
– Yes, there are several Local Churches that received tomes from Constantinople. Yet, there other Churches that did not receive them. Such is, for example, the Russian Orthodox Church. It did not receive the tomos of autocephaly, but when the Patriarch was elected in Moscow, this act was confirmed not by the Patriarch of Constantinople alone, but by four Eastern Patriarchs: of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. In the person of those four Patriarchs it was a conciliar decision of the entire Church existing at the time. They accepted the fifth Patriarch into their family. It was the Patriarch of Moscow.
– Today the official statement of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church has been made. Regarding the decision to send two exarchs to Kiev the statement reads, “These actions lead the relations between the Russian Church and the Church of Constantinople to a deadlock and create a real threat to the unity of the whole world Orthodoxy.” How will the Russian Orthodox Church communicate with the Patriarchate of Constantinople in future? Will it demand that the Patriarchate of Constantinople change its position? Is there such practice?
– It seems that the means of church diplomacy have been exhausted by now. As, of course, you know, several days ago Patriarch Kirill visited Istanbul to meet with the Patriarch of Constantinople. I have to say that on the surface it was a civilized, polite and even brotherly meeting. However, regrettably, as the subsequent events showed, the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not only hear our arguments, but also acted, from our point of view, basely and treacherously. For they are sending their exarchs to Kiev not only without an agreement with the Moscow Patriarchate, but also without the consent of the Metropolitan of Kiev, whom, as Patriarch Bartholomew often said, he recognizes as the only canonical leader of Orthodoxy in Ukraine.
We have made this statement today in the hope that they will reconsider their decision, that no exarchs will go to Kiev. However, in the event that the decision is not reconsidered, we will be forced to think of retaliatory measures. At the moment such measures are being discussed by our Holy Synod.
– What retaliatory measures can there be in such situation?
– There can be different measures. I will not speak of them before they are introduced, because at each stage we will give to those who are still our partners an opportunity to change their mind and reconsider their decisions.
Why are we saying that these decisions lead the dialogue between our Churches to a deadlock and create a threat to the entire Orthodoxy? Because, firstly, there is in fact no dialogue going on at the moment – there is only a monologue of Constantinople that claims its exclusive rights and says that the See of the Metropolia of Kiev was moved to Moscow without the permission of Constantinople. It is being alleged that when in 1686 the Metropolia of Kiev became a part of the Moscow Patriarchate it happened on a temporary basis and that Constantinople has never ceased to regard Ukraine as its canonical territory. Then why have you kept silence for over three hundred years? Why did you not say anything? Why did you not say that this is your territory? Why have you just “remembered” that now? We categorically disagree with such false interpretation of the history: the letter that Patriarch Dionysios of Constantinople sent to Patriarch Joachim of Moscow in 1686 says nothing either about the temporary nature of the transfer of the Metropolia of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate or about some claims of Constantinople on this territory.
Secondly, the current situation itself, when Constantinople in such an aggressive and cynical manner is interfering in the affairs of another Local Church, not only leads the dialogue into a deadlock, but also creates a threat of schism for the Universal Orthodoxy. In the event that Constantinople carries through its cunning plan of granting the autocephaly, it will mean that a group of schismatics will receive it. The canonical Church will not accept this autocephaly. The Russian Church will not recognize this autocephaly, of course. We will have no other choice but to break the communion with Constantinople. It means that the Patriarch of Constantinople will no longer have the right to call himself, as he is doing now, “the leader of the 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide.” At least half of the Orthodox Christians will not recognize him at all. By his actions he will, in fact, split the world Orthodoxy.
– Let us hope that it will not come to that. I have one more question. The events that you are talking about remind in some way the international developments of recent years. It looks like maidan, but within the Church: exarchs from the USA and Canada are going to Ukraine to negotiate the ecclesiastical independence, the schism is within the Church… What is the position of the Church regarding the foreign-policy challenges and regarding the fact that most of such actions have nothing to do with faith or care for the flock, but have more to do with politics? Do you agree with that?
– Of course, all this is happening against the background of an acute political confrontation. More is to say, it is not fortuitous that the Patriarch of Constantinople is making such haste. He realizes that the days of the current Ukrainian authorities are numbered, that some other force will come, which will not endorse these papistical claims of Constantinople. That is why they are trying to do their dirty deed as soon as possible.
It is interesting that the decisions concerning the autocephaly in Ukraine coincide with the decisions on granting the autocephaly to the so-called Macedonian Church. That is a direct conflict between Constantinople and the Serbian Church, and the Serbian Church participated in the Council in Crete, which we did not attend. However, the attitude towards us is the same.
By the way, if the Council held in Crete is still described by Constantinople as pan-Orthodox, as the Holy and Great Council, whose decisions everybody should abide by, then why does not the Patriarchate of Constantinople itself abide by them? Recently they have adopted a sensational decision that a clergyman (priest of deacon) can be allowed to marry for the second time, if his wife abandoned him. It not only violates the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, but is in direct contradiction with the resolution of the Council in Crete that specifically states that priesthood constitutes an impediment to a new marriage.
It is even difficult to imagine how they are going to wed such clergymen. For instance, will the priest be wearing a cassock with a cross at the wedding, or will he change into a suit? How will these priests be choosing wives – from among their parishioners? Such canons were not adopted by chance; it was done to protect the Church from a temptation.
By acting on its own, without the consent of the Local Churches destroying the canonical order that was being established for centuries, the Patriarchate of Constantinople places itself outside of what we call the canonical field, that is outside of the legal framework of the Universal Orthodoxy.
– Vladyka, to conclude our conversation I would like to specify once again: Constantinople has announced that it is sending its exarchs, the Moscow Patriarchate has responded today by the statement. We are waiting for next steps. It is not clear when these exarchs will go. Can there pass much time from the moment of announcement till the trip itself? Is there a chance that they will temporize?
– I do not think that they will temporize. However, we, in our turn, should wait whether these exarchs will come or not, whether Constantinople will reconsider its decision or not. Therefore, as we have noted in our statement, we will, of course, take retaliatory measures. I believe that the time to take these steps will directly depend on the dynamics in the implementation of the project of “granting autocephaly,” in other words, of legitimizing the Ukrainian schism. That is what the Ecumenical Patriarchate is doing now, thus creating a real threat to the unity of Orthodoxy in the world.
– Thank you for the interview.
- 14.11.2018 17:20Metropolitan Hilarion: Patriarch Bartholomew’s actions do not heal the schism but rather deepen it
- 13.11.2018 19:18Resolution of the Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of 13 November 2018
- 17.10.2018 14:01Metropolitan Hilarion: The fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has recognized a schismatic structure means for us that it itself is now in schism
- 16.10.2018 09:37Patriarch Irinej of Serbia: Patriarchate of Constantinople has taken a decision to which it has no right
- 16.10.2018 09:19Metropolitan Hilarion: the Patriarchate of Constantinople has lost the right to be called the coordinating center for the Orthodox Church
- 16.10.2018 08:59Metropolitan Hilarion: Decisions taken by Constantinople run contrary to canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church
- 16.10.2018 08:51Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk: Decision demanded by church canons was taken today
- 15.10.2018 20:12The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church has considered it impossible to remain in the Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople
- 15.10.2018 20:07Statement by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church concerning the encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory of the Russian Church
- 15.10.2018 14:52Patriarch John X of Antioch and All the East calls for convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Council
- 12.10.2018 16:43Three hierarchs of Bulgarian Orthodox Church make statement on situation in Ukraine
- 08.10.2018 08:43Statement of the Holy Synod of Antioch Concerning the Current Developments in the Orthodox World
- 05.10.2018 15:55Primate of the Polish Orthodox Church calls upon His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew to convene inter-Orthodox synaxis to discuss the Ukrainian issue
- 02.10.2018 20:15Statement of the Holy Synod of the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate on the interference of His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople into the internal affairs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
- 02.10.2018 16:39Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk gives interview to Romfea
- 01.10.2018 20:43His Beatitude Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria and All Africa: Church does not bow down to politicians
- 01.10.2018 19:24Patriarch of Alexandria will inform all the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches about the real ecclesial situation in Ukraine
- 30.09.2018 23:22Metropolitan Hilarion: Isolation need not to be feared
- 28.09.2018 19:32Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church holds its regular session
- 22.09.2018 19:14Primates of the Church of Alexandria and Polish Orthodox Church issue appeal concerning the situation of Orthodoxy in Ukraine
- 21.09.2018 10:35Bishop Irinej of Backa ‘On Inaccuracies of Ecclesial and Journalistic Statements on Ukraine’
- 18.09.2018 23:15Metropolitan Anthony of Borispol and Brovary: Sin must not be legitimized for the sake of some geopolitical or national issues
- 18.09.2018 14:30Statement by Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira and Antikythera (Greek Orthodox Church) on uncanonical actions of Patriarch of Constantinople in Ukraine
- 14.09.2018 22:25Metropolitan Hilarion: The decision to suspend the liturgical mention of the Patriarch of Constantinople does not imply breaking off the Eucharistic communion
- 14.09.2018 22:00Holy Synod calls upon Primates of Local Orthodox Churches to initiate pan-Orthodox discussion on the church situation in Ukraine
- 14.09.2018 19:57Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev: Our Church has all attributes of independence
- 14.09.2018 14:51His Holiness Patriarch Kirill chairs extraordinary session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church
- 14.09.2018 10:35Polish Orthodox Church states that there must be no haste with regard to the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in order not to deepen the schism
- 12.09.2018 15:42Statement of the Synod of the Belarusian Orthodox Church (Belarusian Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate) issued on 11 September 2018
- 10.09.2018 14:52Statement by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad on the appointment of exarchs of the Constantinople Patriarchate to Kiev
- 08.09.2018 21:40Metropolitan Hilarion: Patriarch Bartholomew will bear personal responsibility before the judgement of God and the judgement of history
- 08.09.2018 21:33Metropolitan Hilarion: Current situation creates a threat of schism for Universal Orthodoxy
- 08.09.2018 14:15Russian Orthodox Church Holy Synod Statement as of September 8, 2018
- 31.08.2018 20:10Fraternal meeting of Primates of Church of Constantinople and Russian Orthodox Church
- 31.08.2018 12:33Primates of Church of Constantinople and Russian Orthodox Church have begun their meeting